Re: [asa] Expelled

From: RC Metcalf <>
Date: Mon Apr 28 2008 - 00:13:20 EDT

Pardon me for coming into this conversation mid-stream, but I can't help but
wonder how the atheist overcomes his Darwinian programming to become
"moral." Adherence to societal constraints may limit his Darwinian
tendencies, but if he gets away with rape, will he experience shame? I
think he may, but only in the very back of his mind, as he is suppressing
the imago dei daily. Chances are, any feelings of shame he may experience
will be very short lived as a result of that suppression. And they may well
be confused with feelings of fear that he may eventually be caught.

In Dawkins' God Delusion, he listed four forms of altruism that all had one
thing in common. At their core, each resulted in personal benefit for the
altruist. None of them were the "good for goodness sake" kind of altruism
the atheist would have us believe. What causes a man like Arland D.
Williams, Jr. to give his life to save 5 complete strangers after the crash
of Air Florida Flight 90 into the Potomac River's 14th Street bridge in
1982? That sort of heroism is rare, and is an example of true altruism, not
the self-serving kind Dawkins alludes to. Was he a Christian? I don't
know. But, if he wasn't, how did Darwinian naturalism lead him to such an

RC Metcalf

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <>
To: "Merv" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Merv <> wrote:
>> PvM wrote:
>> For the Christian, the Scriptural basis is everything, even if we don't
>> (or
>> maybe refuse) to always see it clearly. Here is what I find to be the
>> more
>> puzzling question: Why DO atheists adhere to the morality that they do
>> have? Obviously they don't just (as a class, anyway) throw all social
>> mores
> For the same reasons Christians do.
>> to the wind. They do accept societal conditioning and restraints on
>> their
>> behavior, if only for self-interest. I blush, from shame, if I'm
>> caught
>> doing or saying something shameful. Does an atheist feel shame. I'm
>> going to bet many of them do. Probably because they were socialized to
>> (they would say). The difference is, for them shame is a pathology that
>> links them to a prudish religious past they are trying to lose. To the
>> Christian, shame is a (usually helpful) motivator to make right choices
>> in
>> the first place.
> Shame works well on anyone. Of course, neither the atheist nor the
> Christian really has objective standards to cause them shame and thus
> shame is impressed upon them by societal pressures.
>> I wonder: If it were somehow discovered in some impossible "knock
>> everybody down" revelation that no supreme being exists (or the supreme
>> being that does exist appears one day to announce He is tired of us, he
>> is
>> leaving forever, and we should just do as we will...) then I wonder who
>> would become the more dangerous class of people to be around on this
>> planet?
> The discouraged Christian you mean versus the atheist who has already
> accepted that morality does not depend on such the existence of a
> Creator?
>> Atheists (who never believed or cared about God anyway, but just adopted
>> whatever social mores they thought appropriate?) or Christians (who
>> very
>> much see the only legitimate grounding for morality as being in God). Of
>> course, a good reason why Christians would "fall apart" without God is
>> that
>> we tend to be among those who most realize our need for him. "...not
>> many
>> of you were wise according to the world..." The pridefully
>> self-sufficient
>> do have the hardest time go through the eye of the needle. So it may go
>> without saying that without God, the weakest collapse first. So I don't
>> think it too far off to suggest that the Christians, along with all the
>> theistic religions as a class would possibly become the nastiest in a
>> hurry.
>> Dawkins suggests something like this (one of the few things of interest
>> in
>> God Delusion), and this argument would be a good one except for its one
>> glaring flaw: It's blissfully hypothetical. (thank God above.)
> And yet, even as a hypothetical it presents a powerful argument I believe.
>> But it does leave us with the non-hypothetical question: Whose
>> morality
>> is superior? Those who know God is watching and derive their guilt from
>> that? Or those who simply adopt their morality from the society around
> Although sin can be easily 'forgotten' in most religions through the
> practice of some ritualistic processes such as confession in the
> Catholic church where guilt remains a strong motivator or through the
> realization that once one is 'saved' one will go to Heaven, as found
> in some protestant interpretations.
>> them? (& Christians can legitimately belong to both sets). I'm pretty
>> sure, though, that even the Dawkins' of the world "adopt" some sense of
>> morality from somewhere, despite denying any absolute basis for it. He
>> virtually says as much. The Christian who over-elevates morality to a
>> central status of differentiation between believer and atheist does, I
>> think, find his argument severely weakened.
> So what if morality is a combination of historical pressures both
> societal as well as evolutionary?
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 28 00:14:49 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 28 2008 - 00:14:50 EDT